These stricter gun laws are so stupid. Any of ya'll notice that the places with the strictest gun laws are also the places with the highest crime rates. Granted, these are very large cities but stats are stats. The citizens of these cities are sitting ducks for the criminals.

Excellent point, bigfig. I am in favor of stricter gun laws in the northeastern states and CA. That way the criminal element would tend to migrate in that direction and leave my area. Just kidding, I don't want to throw any of my fellow Americans "under the bus". Well, maybe a few, but I won't go into that as it gets too political. Back to the point, how is gun control in Chicago curbing gun violence or crime in general? I guess I am just not smart enough. Maybe that is why I am not in public office.

__________________
This is my gun. There are many like her, but this one is mine.

Crime and murder in NY went down when Juliannie cracked down HARD on gangs and thugs a few years back. Chicago under Daily was too soft to put that pressure on the bad guys.

Result = crime still high in Chicago because they refuse to be hard on the really bad illegal gun toting criminals.

Although i just read that Rhom is introducing some new laws that increase jail time and fines for breaking the hand gun laws. That might acutally work, because if a little slap and time is all you get for toting around an illegal registered 30 round glock, then they are going to still do it time after time.

It's not that hard to be better about all of this, it's just that Politics gets in the way!

The insurance law is a great idea. That way any ex boyfriend/stalker/husband can be assured that his down on her luck/unemployed ex woman will not be able to afford a gun permit. Should work out well to curb violence.
Also, those older people on fixed incomes won't pose such a threat to burglars.

I don't get the reasoning behind publishing gun owners names and addresses. It is like they are saying we are as a bad as a sex offender or something. Actually I don't get the reasoning behind any of it. Very afraid for the future.

The US is in dept up to it's eye balls to China. China is using this as leverage and telling Obama to dis-arm it's public. The big question is , why does China want the US public disarmed? It will be done in small steps. Obama has 4 years to start the process.

The US is in dept up to it's eye balls to China. China is using this as leverage and telling Obama to dis-arm it's public. The big question is , why does China want the US public disarmed? It will be done in small steps. Obama has 4 years to start the process.

I see the reasoning behind the 10 round or 7 round limit in semi autos. Its simple! It won't help anything, so in a year or two, they will come back and say, the ban has not worked as good as we hoped so we are going to ban ALL semi-autos regardless of how many bullets they hold. After that, in a year or two, they will revisit the laws and say, the ban on semi-autos has not worked as good as we hope, so we are going to ban all handguns, pump rifles and shot guns. In a few years after that, they will come back and say, the ban on hand guns, pump rifles and shot guns has not worked as good as we hoped so we are going to ban.... This is how they are going to operate. If we open the door for this new round of gun bans, we are all down the tubes as a free nation.

I can understand why Mass cops are mad. The NY law applies to the police as well as the way the law we written there is no exception added for police.

That's the one part of the law I can actually support. Why should cops be exempt from the law? If "high-capacity" magazines are only made for murdering large numbers of people, why do the cops need them? The incident at The Empire State Building a few months back (and many others before that) clearly show the dangers of cops having "high capacity" mags.

Mentioning what I think of the NYPD on here would probably get me in trouble, but it's practically impossible to respect them (and I don't) when you hear their response after they realize that suddenly the have to follow the law to like the rest of us dirty commoners.

Give em all 7 round mags and let the criminals deal with them.

Quote:

The US is in dept up to it's eye balls to China. China is using this as leverage and telling Obama to dis-arm it's public. The big question is , why does China want the US public disarmed? It will be done in small steps. Obama has 4 years to start the process.

I have it on good authority that the Illuminati and Mecha-Hitler are involved as well

I can understand why Mass cops are mad. The NY law applies to the police as well as the way the law we written there is no exception added for police.
That's the one part of the law I can actually support. Why should cops be exempt from the law? If "high-capacity" magazines are only made for murdering large numbers of people, why do the cops need them? The incident at The Empire State Building a few months back (and many others before that) clearly show the dangers of cops having "high capacity" mags.

Mentioning what I think of the NYPD on here would probably get me in trouble, but it's practically impossible to respect them (and I don't) when you hear their response after they realize that suddenly the have to follow the law to like the rest of us dirty commoners.

Give em all 7 round mags and let the criminals deal with them.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to pick a fight but these folks put their life on the line every day... it is there job to run TO danger. They should not be limited. We should not be hoping for things that would endanger them or those they are trying to protect.

I disagree! They should be aloud the same amount as everyone else! You quoted"it is there job to run TO danger."
How is it fair that 5 cops with 150 bullets in there magazines Holding down 2 thugs with 40 bullets vs. 2 thugs holding me down but I only get 10! I can't retreat from the thugs but the LEOs can back off till more cops show up!
99% of the time it is civilians that meet the thugs first! Also why do they get to be exempt when they are off duty?
ps. It was also ruled that they do not have to protect!

I'm sorry, I don't mean to pick a fight but these folks put their life on the line every day... it is there job to run TO danger. They should not be limited. We should not be hoping for things that would endanger them or those they are trying to protect.

Frankly people like those are specifically the kind we don't need protecting us.

Did they complain about the law's unconstitutionality? Or that it limit's EVERYONE'S ability to defend themselves? No, they didn't care about any of those things. It's only once they learned that they themselves would be inconvenienced did they start whining.

Screw them. Once the police start getting the idea that they are somehow special and better than the mere "civilians" they must constantly deal with then their well-being is of little concern to me at that point.

If I lived where you do with the police force that you have. Perhaps one of the counties where the Sheriffs specifically refuse to enforce unconstitutional gun laws, then my opinion would be much the same as yours. However when you deal with cops like these all these years, it's hard not to view them as a nuisance at best and and outright enemy at worst.

With respect to LEOs and capacity limits, there are two important concepts that really ought to be kept separate. One is: What are the odds of needing a firearm for defensive purposes? The second is: How many rounds does one need, in the event that one does need a firearm for defensive purposes. Those two issues often get tangled up in the discussions about LEOs and capacity limits.

Due to the nature of their work, LEOs have a higher probability of needing to use a firearm. I, as a civilian, do not do things like make traffic stops or strike up conversations with people who are unruly. LEOs do. That means that it is more likely that a LEO will need his gun to defend himself. By extension, this also means that LEOs face an increased probability of multiple attackers, as compared to myself.

However, once that "probability threshhold" has been crossed, and it's clear that a defensive gun use is in play, a law enforcement officer faces a human or humans, just as you or I would. Further, LEOs have the advantages of being able to get backup, and (normally) having notified someone of their whereabouts before making contact.

__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.